The Crux of the Pro-tithe Argument

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

As in defeat?

As in agreement.
My hanky is not white.

Brother,
I really do commend your attitude, if not your doctrine. Remember when you first crossed swords with me on the tithe doctrine. (Well it was really like I had a sword and you had a penknife, but I digress). You left the discussion in a huff, and told me I had a spirit of rebellion or something? Comments were made about witchcraft, IIRC.

Lo and behold, here we are a few months later, and I’m thinking you may invite me over for grilled duck breast and onions. And I may just take you up on it.

I think you’re looking our way brother. I’m claiming you as a truth in tithing convert, by faith.

Isn’t this fun?!

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

As in agreement.
My hanky is not white.

Brother,
I really do commend your attitude, if not your doctrine. Remember when you first crossed swords with me on the tithe doctrine. (Well it was really like I had a sword and you had a penknife, but I digress). You left the discussion in a huff, and told me I had a spirit of rebellion or something? Comments were made about witchcraft, IIRC.

Lo and behold, here we are a few months later, and I’m thinking you may invite me over for grilled duck breast and onions. And I may just take you up on it.

I think you’re looking our way brother. I’m claiming you as a truth in tithing convert, by faith.

Isn’t this fun?!

Let my words be few.

[Michael The Disciple]

The minister especially has to be available all the time. Not bound by a 40+ hr work schedule. What if God tells you to available this week, not to do any work, pray, fast, stay home and allow his spirit to minister to you? Would your boss be ok with that?

What about the disciple? Does he not have to be led by the Spirit? Do you believe God does not work dynamically in the life of his saints? Do they not need to be available at any time to the Lord? How many people have I witnessed to while I was working a job? I never kept count but in a company of 1200 people in my last job there were very few who did not know who I was. I have laid hands on an injured co worker and seen God heal him and immediately he went all around the place testifying how God healed him.

Dont fall into the clergy/laity trap.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

What about the disciple? Does he not have to be led by the Spirit? Do you believe God does not work dynamically in the life of his saints? Do they not need to be available at any time to the Lord? How many people have I witnessed to while I was working a job? I never kept count but in a company of 1200 people in my last job there were very few who did not know who I was. I have laid hands on an injured co worker and seen God heal him and immediately he went all around the place testifying how God healed him.

Dont fall into the clergy/laity trap.

I don’t believe saints are “less than” anything. With that said not everyone is the watchmen, not everyone is leadership, not everyone is called into the ministry. Those who are in my opinion are held to a higher standard. I believe saints can have a powerful relationship with God. I’ll say this and this is a shame on us (ministry) most of the intercessors I’ve seen are saints. But I put the man of God in a place of, if your needed you better go, if God is calling you better go. The Pastor (ministry) needs to see what’s up ahead to warn them, we are servants.

I’m not doubting you, ministry is always held at a higher standard.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

What about the disciple? Does he not have to be led by the Spirit? Do you believe God does not work dynamically in the life of his saints? Do they not need to be available at any time to the Lord? How many people have I witnessed to while I was working a job? I never kept count but in a company of 1200 people in my last job there were very few who did not know who I was. I have laid hands on an injured co worker and seen God heal him and immediately he went all around the place testifying how God healed him.

Dont fall into the clergy/laity trap.

Mike if the Apostle Paul believed like you, no epistels would of been written.
Because it sounds like you believe that the church has no elders who lead, but is totally comprised of unaccountable rouges who do whatever they feel to do. Led by the Spirit? Oh, sure, met a huge amount of loners who operating from trailers, over the internet. Who constantly remind everyone from relatives, to co workers, to neighbors that they are led by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Yet, surprisingly, these same relatives, co workers, and neighbors run the other way as they approach? But, please keep telling us about your glory days, about all your personal achievements. How the 1970s and early 80s God was meeting you over at Waffle House, and you were casting demons out of the pecan waffles.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Mike if the Apostle Paul believed like you, no epistels would of been written.
Because it sounds like you believe that the church has no elders who lead, but is totally comprised of unaccountable rouges who do whatever they feel to do. Led by the Spirit? Oh, sure, met a huge amount of loners who operating from trailers, over the internet. Who constantly remind everyone from relatives, to co workers, to neighbors that they are led by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Yet, surprisingly, these same relatives, co workers, and neighbors run the other way as they approach? But, please keep telling us about your glory days, about all your personal achievements. How the 1970s and early 80s God was meeting you over at Waffle House, and you were casting demons out of the pecan waffles.

Blessings Dom

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

1 Corinthians 9 is about itinerant apostles who go about evangelizing as church planters. Paul makes it clear in verse 1.

Why, then, did he say that he had the right to the provision but abrogated it to not let anyone accuse him?

We have some sorting out to do with all the references that relate to Paul and his secular work.

I say this because we are reading people in this thread make reference to Paul's description of himself living by his own hands in other passages, so as to allegedly provide proof that ministers should not receive provision from the believers to whom they minister. Paul is being used as an example for everyone. However, 1 Cor 9 shows us that he actually claimed the right to receive provision and not support himself by the work of his own hands. So, if people are going to use Paul's references to encourage ministry to not receive income from their field of harvest, they need to study this chapter and realize Paul explicitly claimed that he had full right to provision.

If Paul is an example of not receiving income for the ones who actually should not receive income, then we have a huge problem. This means that people cannot use his words about his secular work to provide for himself, since he only said that to avoid blame of mongering for filthy lucre, when, if he did take support, he did not have such an intention whatsoever.

That's one issue that must be sorted out.

The next is what you claimed here about this only applying to some who preach the gospel, and not all, who are distinct from the rest because they are itinerant. When we read through Paul's chapter here, he does not once focus in on the distinction of being itinerant in his ministry. He simply generalizes the right fro those to receive support by referring to the ones who preach the gospel.

How does the reference to not muzzling the ox who treads the corn only apply to the itinerant ministers and not any minister who is called to the ministries listed in Eph 4:11?

Plowing and threshing is not only for itinerants.

Sowing spiritual things is not only for itinerants.

Paul said that anyone who ministers about holy things live of the temple, and does that only apply spiritually in type to the itinerants?

Paul stated in the first verse that the people were his labour in the Lord. Is this not true of all ministers called especially to give the Word.

(As an aside, some think that every believer is meant to give the word and be a minister of the word in this way. That is not true. Paul distinctly stated that some are called to minister the word to people in Eph 4 when he spoke of prophets, evangelists, apostles, pastors and teachers. Paul told Timothy that elders who rule well should be counted worthy of double honour, especially the ones who labour in word and doctrine. Not al believers, therefore, labour in word and doctrine.)

1 Corinthians 9:1.. Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

By free, he meant he was free of the need to work secular jobs to support himself.

The people who were his work in the Lord were the souls he ministered to and brought to God.

I see no distinction here in mentioning his apostleship in order to inform people that itinerants alone should be support but simply a reference to what his particular calling was among those others who likewise labour in the word and doctrine in the lives of believers.

Are not other Eph chapter 4 "gift-ministries" just as much comparable to a soldier going to war, a vineyard husbandman, a shepherd feeding the flock (verse 7), an ox treading the corn, a plowman and a thresherman (verse 0), and a sower of the seed of the word (Verse 11) as apostles are?

I see far more weight stating that these above examples Paul used to prove there is a right to support for the ministry belongs to an gift-ministry and not just itinerants, than I see in the first verse limiting the explanation only to itinerant ministries.

In fact, I see anything but itinerancy in the example of the shepherd example in verse 11 is more for a pastor (literally a shepherd in the Greek) than an itinerant ministry that leaves the flock for other fields of ministry in a constant manner, although itinerants would qualify just as well in the overall explanation he gives.

As I explain to tithemeister next, tithe to me is simply a per centage some choose to give and they should understand it can be any percentage, and it is NOT bound to the many legalities that are bound to it under law. We are not under law. Period. Like you said, I suppose those who criticize tithing are thinking of those who associate all the demands of law with it that went with that number in that covenant. I do not see that at all, which is the background of my explanation.

This just shows more of a need to explain law versus grave than it is to say those who use the word tithe are hypocrites.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

It is incredibly naive to think that the word tithe can be divorced from the OT law and canon. No one would even have the word drilled into their heads and come up with the idea of giving ten percent of their yearly income if it wasn't for the laws concerning the tithe in the OT. Two references in Genesis wouldn't make the difference. People tithe because of the law. It's plain and simple, even if in your own mind you separate the two, the vast majority do not. This thread is proof. Malachi 3 has already been referenced, and it always is, to terrify saints into making sure they tithe so they don't go to hell as a thief and robber of God. And Malachi, in referencing tithes, is referencing the Torah laws and commandments of the tithe.

So no, I don't think you should try to convince everyone that the word tithe has nothing to do with the law, because even the word itself is part of the church vernacular because of the law. If tithing wasn't a part of the law, not a soul would speak of it.

I understand that point, but we can do the same thing with general sacrifice.

If one simply gives a tenth as a manner of giving, there is nothing wrong with that even if it is not done with all the laws associated with the tithe in the old testament.

Since the New Testament does not demand "tithes", again, it's just giving, no matter what percentage it is.

Is it right to demand the Malachian verse of a curse on those who choose to give ten percent of their income as an offering, just because they give the same percentage that La required people to give in assocation with all of the other laws of the old covernant?

It's just a word. Of course, there is the legalistic element involved with the vast majority of those who use the term. But if a person is simply giving that percentage as an offering while understanding that none of the legalities associated with that particular percentage woudl curse any giver, then so what about the term? What needs to be explained is that forsaking a certain tenth percentage will not curse a person and thereby do the work that cross did not removing the curse.

This thread had so many demands that the reference to tithe demands all the legalities and it simply does not. If a person chooses to fgive ten percent they are NOT required to abide by all the legalities associated with it under the Old Covenant. They just are not. That's my point.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother Blume,

Does Paul mention tithes at all in this chapter? You seem to think I’m splitting hairs. But it strikes me as hypocrisy to quote the law to establish a right, only to discard the same law, when it excludes you from receiving tithes.

Paul wasn’t establishing a right for non Levites to receive tithes. That would have been CONTRARY to the law. Nor was he establishing a responsibility for Gentiles or Christians to pay tithes. Again, this would have been contrary to the law. He was saying, it is the right of the minister of God to eat and drink of offerings from a church.

Paul really was not even speaking as a pastor in this passage. He was speaking specifically as an apostle. As he makes clear.

There were twelve apostles in the Jerusalem church. Paul was asserting that he was an apostle, as much as the other twelve. He wasn’t asserting that he was a pastor or elder. He was referring to his position as an apostle.

Don’t you agree?

I was not focusing on tithes when I quoted 1 Cor 9, but just noting that a minister has the right to receive support because others were saying they do not have that right. But since a person CAN give ten per cent, (who says they cannot ?) and they consider it support, then why can't the minister receive it?

Paul speak of a shepherd, a plowman, a soldier, a thresherman as examples of the ministry, and apostles were not the only ones who fulfilled those references

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother Blume,

You asked about widows being eligible for tithes in the Bible. I gave you the scriptural example of the Old Testament.

And that was under law, legalilsm.

Then you asked for a New Testament example.

Acts.6

[1] And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Nothing said about tithes there.

Did you ever wonder why the Grecian widows were neglected? I have. The Hebrew widows were getting taken care of, but the Grecian widows weren’t.

It is not spelled out specifically in the Bible why this is so. But allow me to give you my theory. The Hebrew widows were provided for by the Mosaic tithing law, which the Jerusalem church was still following. The Mosaic tithing law did NOT provide for Grecian widows though. Hence the murmuring mentioned above.

So, what did the church do? They arranged to take care of the widows.

[2] Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
[3] Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

The apostles appointed no less than seven men of wisdom, and full of the Holy Ghost, to take care of the widows, that were not eligible to receive tithes (just like you are ineligible to receive tithes). The Grecian widows were taken care of by the church, the Hebrew widows were taken care of by the tithe. All of the widows were taken care of. According to the New Testament example found in Acts.

I’m still waiting for your scripture that says that you (as a pastor) are in any way entitled to tithes.

You are again missing the forest for the trees. And I already covered the fact that a person is free to give ten per cent to the church ministry for support without any attached legalities associated with it from the law. Sorry, but your insistence on narrowing this down to legalities is not a new covenant issue.